
How Often Do Women Falsely Cry Rape?The question the Hofstra disaster left dangling.
Posted Thursday, Oct. 1, 2009, at 12:54 PM ETHow often do women falsely cry rape? Because of the 18-year-old Hofstra student who recanted after telling police that five men had tricked her into a bathroom and then gang raped her two weeks ago, that question has been flying around the Internet. As Cathy Young notes in Newsday, the answers often fall into one of two camps. "Many feminists argue that the problem of false accusations is so minuscule that to discuss it extensively is a harmful distraction from the far more serious problem of rape. On the other side are men's-rights activists, claiming that false accusations are as much of a scourge as rape itself."
But isn't the rate of false rape charges an empirical question, with a specific answer that isn't vulnerable to ideological twisting? Yes and no. There has been a burst of research on this subject. Some of it is careful, but much of it is questionable. While most of the good studies converge at a rate of about 8 percent to 10 percent for false rape charges, the literature isn't quite definitive enough to stamp out the far higher estimates. And even if we go by the lower numbers, there's the question of interpretation. If one in 10 charges of rape is made up, is that a dangerously high rate or an acceptably low one? To put this in perspective, if we use the Bureau of Justice Statistics that show about 200,000 rapes in 2008, we could be looking at as many as 20,000 false accusations.
Legal scholars used to be routinely suspicious of rape victims. "Surely the simplest, and perhaps the most important, reason not to permit conviction for rape on the uncorroborated word of the prosecutrix is that the word is very often false," a Yale Law Journal article opined in 1952, echoing a view voiced since at least the 17th century. These views remained mainstream into the 1970s, if not later. As Marcia Clark said yesterday recalling the 1977 rape charges against Roman Polanski, "Those were the days when folks still believed rape was 'easy to charge and hard to disprove.' " And that old adage couldn't have been further from the truth. Prosecutors well knew that unless the victim was Snow White, the case was toast."
You can see what Susan Brownmiller was up against when she wrote her path-breaking feminist tract, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, in 1975.
In her book, Brownmiller said that only 2 percent of rape allegations are false, citing findings by the female police in a New York City rape squad. The problem is that while this statistic has been widely repeated, with dutiful mentions of New York-based "research," no one has ever tracked down its source. This we learned from a comprehensive review of the literature on false rape charges published in the Cambridge Law Journal in 2006. The author, Philip Rumney, finds a couple of small studies that back up the 2 percent claim but isn't confident of their methodology.
Rumney's survey of the terrain is the best we found. He also takes aim at the findings on the other end of the spectrum—the research that purports to show that the rate of false allegations of rape is in the range of 40 percent, as well as the flawed (but often cited) work that makes a crazy high jump to as high as 90 percent. The 40 percent figure is usually attributed to a 1994 article by E.J. Kanin in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Kanin looked at 109 reports of rape to police in one small Midwestern metropolitan area over nine years. His pool was small. The police he studied always offered the victim a polygraph—perhaps signaling they doubted her veracity. And Kanin himself "warns against generalising from his findings" and points to reasons for questioning them, as Rumney explains.
The hugely high 90 percent false rate is several degrees more suspect. The citation for it is usually a study in Scotland by police surgeon N.M. MacLean of only 34 rape complaints made from 1969-74. Complaints were labeled false if they were made after a delay. Or if the victim didn't look "disheveled" or upset or seriously injured. But those factors don't necessarily indicate that a rape charge is trumped up. When police use stereotypes about rape to sort real allegations from false ones, they can do victims a real disservice, as this model paper from the Oregon Attorney General's Sexual Assault Task Force explains. In a 1981 study of 16 reports that claimed the victim admitted to making it up in 14 of them, one case was disproved because the police decided the woman was too large for the alleged rapist to have taken off her "extremely tight undergarments" against her will. Need we say that this not the critical eye we want from the cops?
Rumney's smart debunkings leave us with a group of American, British, Canadian, and New Zealand studies that converge around a rate of 8 percent to 10 percent for false reports of rape. Not all of these studies are flawless, but together they're better than the rest of the lot. They include a massive 1997 report on sexual assault by the U.S. Department of Justice, which includes data from 16,000 local, county, and state law enforcement agencies. The DoJ found that "in 1995, 87% of recorded forcible rapes were completed crimes and the remainder were classified as attempts. Law enforcement agencies indicated that about 8% of forcible rapes reported to them were determined to be unfounded and were excluded from the count of crimes."
Did the NYT Just Call Joe Biden the Second Most Powerful Vice President Ever?
Meet the TV Genius Behind Jon & Kate, Table for 12, and the Duggars
Does the Health Reform Bill Really Restrict the Rights of Gun Owners?
Don't Fall for Best Buy's Scam To "Optimize" Your New Macintosh
Would Sen. Obama Approve of President Obama's Afghanistan Plan?
How Roald Dahl's Stories for Children Eclipsed His Fiction for Adults












The article is primarily about rape being criminally charged. A couple of decades ago the Navy did a study that raised a tangential issue that is particularly troubling in the military -- false "allegations" of rape that are not reported to law enforcement. The study found evidence that in the military context, most "false rape" reports were not intended to be "charged" and thus formally investigated by law enforcement. For example, a woman might tell a senior officer 'confidentially' that a co-worker had raped her. The senior is now stuck --- if he reports the allegation to 'law enforcement' then he is at risk of being maligned for breaching her confidentiality, having his command bought under the microscope, etc. However, if he doesn't report it, then he may simply think that one of his subordinates is a rapist. An employee/sailor suddenly gets treated like crap, gets re-assigned, etc. etc. and may never get told why. Thus, when talking about how frequently people "cry" rape, at least in the justice system there is a chance for thorough investigation. Allegations that are not made to the police -- but to bosses, co-workers, etc. might be even more problematic.
As an example, at a University I attended a young woman went to the counseling center and alleged she had been raped. She didn't want to report the incident, but was urged to -- and the report was eventually made to campus police. Instantly the school paper had headlines about a rape on campus, "are you safe?", etc. etc. Within a few weeks the police had discovered that this woman had mental problems and had reported identical rape stories at least 3 other schools in the past. She never intended to involved law enforcement, she apparently just wanted the sympathy/reinforcement of counselors.
I don't know that the false reporting rates are, but it is an issue worth some serious study. At the same time, we should keep in mind the context in which the allegations were made.
-- fozzy
(To reply, click here)
A flaw in our legal system is the separation of the determination of guilt from the determination of punishment. We first decide, "guilty of rape", and taking that determination as fact we then set about to set a punishment. So no matter how poor the evidence, once a jury says you did it, you're then up against the same stiff penalties as if you were caught on tape. This process makes sense if our ability to determine guilt is very good, but it is not, not just for rape but for a whole lot of cases. Given this state of affairs, it might be more rational to factor in the quality of the evidence (that is, the odds that the determination of guilt is correct) in the sentencing phase. In a he-says-she-says case, for example, the sentence would be pro-rated downward given the low quality of the evidence. As better evidence is presented, the factor would go up. Given video proof, max sentences would apply. A system like this would help ensure that when there are errors in the justice system, which there always will be, that the errors will cost less.
Of course, we like to cling to the notion that guilty verdicts represent established facts, that we can design a legal system that doesn't make mistakes. Given the number of exonerations given better evidence (e.g. DNA evidence), though, that idea is increasingly revealed for the fantasy that it is.
-- kolmogorov
(To reply, click here)
One thing the article doesn't explain is what "false" means in the better studies - the complainant recants? insufficient evidence? I know one study referred to claims that were found upon investigation to be "unfounded," but I would wonder the same thing about that. Does it mean the complainant is determined to be not credible in the opinion of the investigators/prosecutors? that the alleged assailant has a good alibi or forensic evidence excludes him?
To me, there's a lot of difference between a story that is entirely made up, and a case where there is insufficient evidence to support a claim.
-- bagelwoman
(To reply, click here)